Science vs. Scientism

In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled “God and Science Don’t Mix”, the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss argued that science implies atheism, or at least Deism. His argument can be summarized as follows:

• Science tries to explain nature without calling on miracles or Divine Providence.
• Science has been very successful.
• This proves there's no miracles or Divine Providence.
• The big religions assume there is.
• Therefore they’re all false.
• Also, look at Iran to see how bad religion is.

There are many flaws with his argument, and I will discuss some. The fact that science assumes there are no miracles does not mean there never are. Scientists study nature, but their may have been rare, supernatural events in the past. How does science disprove that possibility?

It may be hard to observe Divine Providence, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. I wrote to the Wall Street Journal:

Lawrence Krauss’s argument is similar to that of the 19th-century Materialists. They claimed everything was made of atoms, and if given enough information, the entire past and future could be predicted. Such a proposition left no room for free will or Divine providence. The development of Quantum Mechanics in the 20^th century showed that, in truth, nothing could be predicted with exactitude; the smallest particles operated by apparent randomness. This randomness provides a hidden mechanism for God to intervene in the world.

While the letter isn’t exactly publish-quality, my point is clear: The Deism of the 1800’s cannot be justified when facing the mystery of the Quanta.

It would be helpful to compare the attitudes of the two greatest physicists of all time - Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. Einstein had a similar attitude as Mr. Krauss'. To quote an article from Time Magazine:

But there was one religious concept, Einstein went on to say, that science could not accept: a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation. "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God," he argued. Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will, or for that matter human will, plays a role that would violate this cosmic causality.

Einstein strongly believed in absolute determinism, and felt that science precluded both the notion of Divine Providence and of freewill. He felt such an attitude made it easier to forgive both others and himself for wrongdoings. He held these philosophical convictions so strongly that even as the evidence mounted for the new physics, Quantum Mechanics, he refused to accept it. To his dying day he believed that “God does not play dice with the cosmos”. In another case, which Einstein later called his “greatest mistake”, he fudged his relativity equations to maintain a belief in an eternal universe. Einstein may have felt his beliefs were principles of science, but they were just examples of the bias of scientism.

Isaac Newton was, in many ways, the father of science. His theory of gravity united the heavens and the earth. Did this discovery cause him to reject his religion? Actually yes, but he didn’t become an atheist or Deist. After discovering the unity of the universe, Newton rejected the Christian trinity as idolatry, and accepted the One God of Moses. He even risked his career by refusing to take Christian oaths.

Newton realized the order and unity of nature do not point to atheism, but rather to the One Creator. God and science get along just fine, it’s God and scientism that don’t mix.

Back to Blogging

I haven't blogged for a while, I think I'll try to put up some posts in the coming days.
A lot has happened since my last blog post. I finished my 20th lap around the sun, and I thought maybe it's time to change the name of my blog. I'm considering "The Path from Sinai" at sinaipath.blogspot.com. I'm also thinking of moving my blog to Wordpress, they have some features Blogger doesn't. I put a poll on the side so readers can vote for their preffered name. You can also leave suggestions in the comments section of this post.
I also started a new website, Ezinagro, which in its early stages. Its eventual goal is to help people find the best website on any topic, and it has many sites you may not have even thought of looking for. Readers of this blog are encouraged to visit Ezinagro, click on its links, and maybe buy some advertising links of their own.

New Talmudica Post

Because this past week's parsha discussed Jewish slaves, I decided to publish some Talmudica charts on the topic. I also published some selected ha'aros from my old talmudica pages. Just visit Talmudica. The old pages are still at geocities and can also be accessed at theses links: 29-33 34-40.

Megillah Shiurim

Talmud used to be actual Bal Peh discussions of the Torah and known halachos. The gemara text is a preserved form of the original live discussion. This shiur is a return to the gemara's original style. Instead of reading the gemara text, the shiur is the gemara discussion. The best way to prepare for these shiurim is to first read the relevant pesukim, mishnayos and braysos. The main halachik pesukim for all of Meseches Megillah are Esther 9:15-32. Below is the relevant mishna and braysa for this shiur.

מתני - קראו את המגילה באדר הראשון ונתעברה השנה קורין אותה באדר שני. אין בין אדר הראשון לאדר השני אלא קריאת המגילה ומתנות לאביונים:

ברייתא - קראו את המגילה באדר הראשון ונתעברה השנה קורין אותה באדר השני, שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני נוהגות בראשון חוץ ממקרא מגילה. ר''א ברבי יוסי אומר אין קורין אותה באדר השני שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני נוהגות בראשון. רשב''ג אומר משום רבי יוסי אף קורין אותה באדר השני שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני אין נוהגות בראשון. ושוין בהספד ובתענית שאסורין בזה ובזה.

The first shiur I'm publishing is similar to Megillah 6b. I already had made chazara shiurim up to daf 6, and I may publish "Torah SheBal Peh" shiurim until daf 8. I tried unsuccessfully to publish this shiur Purim time. I'm publishing it now as a video, because that's ironically easier than publishing an audio file.

Updates: The next shiur, based on Megillah 7a, is now online, and both files are now in audio!

Should A Terrorist Be Released For A Soldier's Remains?

This was YU's assigned essay choice. Most of the arguments in the essay also apply to the exchange of terrorists for a live soldier.

YU Honors Essay A1

Should A Terrorist Be Released For A Soldier's Remains?

"Who is wise?" Alexander the Great asked the Jewish Sages.ⁱ "He who foresees the consequences of his actions," they responded. No advice could be more prudent for the leader of any state, from the Greek Emperor of antiquity to the current Prime Minister of Israel. What may seem like a desirable action now, could turn out to have disastrous results in the future. This issue has to be kept in mind when considering releasing a terrorist for a soldier's remains.

In any moral question, one must compare the potential benefits and losses. Judaism regards the recovery of captives as one of the greatest mitzvoth a person can do. Even so, the Talmudⁱⁱ states that captives should not be redeemed for more than their value. Proper burial is also an important mitzva, but there is no obligation to undertake undue expense,ⁱⁱⁱ and certainly not a high ransom. Recovering the body will also help comfort the soldier's relatives, surely a worthy cause. The benefits of recovering the body are clear: to respect the dead and to comfort the living. The question remains: is it worth the cost?

Freeing a terrorist for a soldier's body can cause great harm. The terrorist who is released comes back as a hero, ready to commit more murder.^iv In addition, the terrorist groups are encouraged to attempt more kidnappings when they see the rewards they get. This is why the Talmud forbade paying too high a ransom even for living captives.

Releasing terrorists has caused Israel big problems in the past. In 2004, Israel released over 400 terrorists in exchange for Hezbollah releasing one captive and three soldiers' bodies. Hezbollah considered it a great victory and they promised more kidnappings in the future.^v Two years later, they fulfilled their promise, and caused the Second Lebanon War, in which the freed terrorists added to their manpower. The cost of recovering the captives two years earlier was the 160 lives Israel lost in the war.

Proponents of such trades claim Israel has a moral obligation to retrieve the soldiers who fought for their country. They also claim the trades are necessary for boosting soldiers' morale. When Israeli soldiers see that they will never be abandoned, and that Israel will do anything to rescue even their dead bodies, they will fight with greater courage.

In truth, these arguments raise issues that demonstrate the opposite. Israeli soldiers go out to battle knowing they may not come back. If they die in battle, they know they gave their lives for the security of their country. By risking future lives to recover their bodies, the soldiers' sacrifice becomes the cause of Israel's insecurity. It would also harm army morale: soldiers risk their lives to capture a terrorist and then the government releases him for a dead body.

Alexander the Great created a large empire, hoping to unify the world, but he failed to foresee that it would collapse and cause more strife. The Prime Minister of Israel should look beyond the immediate benefit of recovering a soldier's remains, and recognize that it is not worth the consequences of releasing a terrorist. Only then would he truly be wise.

iTalmud Bavli Tamid 32a

iiibid. Gittin 45a

iiiYorah Deah 357 - Pischei Teshuva s"k 1 citing the Chavos Yair. The case involved a gentile governor keeping a Jewish body ransom for a large sum. The Chavos Yair ruled it was not necessary to give in to the demand.

ivA report by the Almagor Terror Victims Association showed that 14% of released terrorists were later re-arrested for murder, and they were responsible for the death of 123 Israeli civilians. (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/111648) see also (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184766004268&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)

vSee http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109812,00.html

Yisro - Man of Truth

Yisro hears about the great things G-d did for the Jews so he travels to their camp in the desert. His son-in-law, Moshe, gives him a big welcome and they have a big meal to celebrate his arrival. The Torah continues...

{שמות יח} ויהי ממחרת וישב משה לשפט את העם ויעמד העם על משה מן הבקר עד הערב. וירא חתן משה את כל אשר הוא עשה לעם

ויאמר- מה הדבר הזה אשר אתה עשה לעם מדוע אתה יושב לבדך וכל העם נצב עליך מן בקר עד ערב:

ויאמר משה לחתנו- כי יבא אלי העם לדרש אלהים. כי יהיה להם דבר בא אלי ושפטתי בין איש ובין רעהו והודעתי את חקי האלהים ואת תורתיו:

What Most People would say: Okay, sounds important, I won't bother you any further.

What Yisro said:

ויאמר חתן משה אליו- לא טוב הדבר אשר אתה עשה: נבל תבל גם אתה גם העם הזה אשר עמך כי כבד ממך הדבר לא תוכל עשהו לבדך: עתה שמע בקלי איעצך ויהי אלהים עמך היה אתה לעם מול האלהים והבאת אתה את הדברים אל האלהים: והזהרתה אתהם את החקים ואת התורת והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון: ואתה תחזה מכל העם אנשי חיל יראי אלהים אנשי אמת שנאי בצע ושמת עלהם שרי אלפים שרי מאות שרי חמשים ושרי עשרת: ושפטו את העם בכל עת והיה כל הדבר הגדל יביאו אליך וכל הדבר הקטן ישפטו הם והקל מעליך ונשאו אתך: אם את הדבר הזה תעשה וצוך אלהים ויכלת עמד וגם כל העם הזה על מקמו יבא בשלום:

How the People around might have replied: Yisro, relax. You just got here! Not so long ago, you were fattening cows to every god in the world! And you're talking to Moshe, the greatest prophet ever! He probably knows what he's doing, but he'll ask you for his advice when he wants it. You don't need to give a whole drosho just like that! What are you trying to do, get a new parsha in the Torah?

But that is not what Moshe said..

וישמע משה לקול חתנו ויעש כל אשר אמר: ויבחר משה אנשי חיל מכל ישראל ויתן אתם ראשים על העם שרי אלפים שרי מאות שרי חמשים ושרי עשרת: ושפטו את העם בכל עת את הדבר הקשה יביאון אל משה וכל הדבר הקטן ישפוטו הם:

Yisro was the man of truth. Many people just follow everyone around them, never questioning a thing. But not Yisro. He tried out every religion, never satisfied until he found the truth - Judaism. He joins the Jews, but he notices their courts are not being run so efficiently. Many people would just keep quiet, but not Yisro. If he had just accepted things as they were, he would still be a priest to the Midanite deities. When Yisro saw that things could be run more efficiently, he said so! He was worthy of causing an extra parsha to be added to the Torah. Moshe realized Yisor's suggestion was good, and he recognized the importance of having such a man with them:

(Bamidbar) ויאמר אל נא תעזב אתנו כי על כן ידעת חנתנו במדבר והיית לנו לעינים:

The Blessing Over Bad

Based on my YU Honors Essay

The Blessing Over Bad

Monotheism, Providence and the End of Days

When the people of the bronze age looked at their world, they saw a great variety of natural phenomena. There was fire and water, wind and clouds. The sun was dominant by day and the moon at night. The world appeared to be under the control of many different forces, so mankind worshiped many different deities. But one man delved deeper. He searched beyond all of nature's apparent discordance and realized there was an underlying unity. The sun and the moon, the wind and the clouds, were all part of a greater whole, there was one Source to it all. The man was Abraham, the father of Judaism, and he had discovered God.¹

The primary teaching of Judaism is that everything, whether sunshine or rain, whether good or bad, comes from one God. When we hear good news, we make sure to bless Him in gratitude and recognition for the good He has shown us. It is equally important to acknowledge God when we hear bad news. The polytheist or heretic may attribute his misfortune to another god or to randomness, but we believe everything that happens comes from one Source. When we bless God over bad news, we affirm this fundamental belief.

The blessing also has a deeper meaning. The way we react to events helps determine their effects. When misfortune happens, it may seem like it can only cause harm. However, if we consider it as a Divine wakeup call, it helps cause repentance. If we realize the bad has come because of our sins, it can serve as atonement for those sins.² Even if we cannot understand why the bad is happening to us, by recognizing that God is the source, we come closer to Him. By blessing God on our misfortunes, we express the faith that transforms bad into good.

If instead, we considers the bad that befalls us as chance, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. "If you go with me randomly I will go with you with the wrath of randomness" When the Jews do not recognize the message, God withdraws His protection and shows them what happens when they are actually left to random forces.

The polytheists of ancient times thought the world was the product of many powers, but modern science has proven them wrong. The many apparent forces of nature, from sunshine to wind, all follow the same physical laws, hinting to one Creator. Similarly, we have faith that the many events of history, from exile to redemption, all follow the same plan, guided by one God. We may not understand our misfortunes now, but the days will come when we will.

Abraham recognized the unity in nature thousands of years ago. By having faith and blessing God for everything that befalls us, we are are following in our forefather's footsteps. We are traveling on the path that will lead to the ultimate recognition of God by all of humanity, when all will understand the great unity of both nature and history. In the words of our sages³:

"...On that day will the Lord be One and His Name One" - Is the Lord not One now? ...This world is not like the Next World. In this world we say the blessing, "The Good and Beneficent" on good news and "The True Judge" on bad news. But in the Next World, we will say "The Good and Beneficent" on everything.

1See Bereishis Rabah 35, 39

2Its a basic Jewish idea that suffering atones for sins, but how does that work? I think it is more than just some sort of point system! The onesh one suffers in the next world is the intense shame he will feel for having sinned. But if he considers his suffering here as serving that purpose, then it does. It also helps him repent and come closer to God.

3Talmud Bavli Pesachim 50a

Pride Prejudice & Punctuation

almost all books people read nowadays come with punctuation whether a novel a chemistry book a rambam or even a chumash everything comes with punctuation theres a simple reason for this punctuation makes things easier to read without diluting or altering anything and yet for some reason when it comes to learning the text that needs it most people dont use punctuation the talmud contains the complicated discussions of torah shbal peh and would obviously benefit from some punctuation and yet everyone from brisk to yu from lakewood to migdal oz doesnt use punctuated gemaras why is that these are the reasons they give it makes no difference whether or not theres punctuation once you get used to it struggling over the punctuation is part of the necessary amelus of talmud torah especially when theres a machlokes in punctuation in addition the amelus helps you remember what you learned punctuated gemaros have a different tzuras hadaf which is assur to change how will you find a gemara in another shas how will you learn to read a real gemara if you use a punctuated one none of these arguments seem very strong ill go through each one it makes no difference whether or not theres punctuation once you get used to it having punctuation makes things clearer especially when reading the complicated back and forth of gemara having things punctuated helps ill admit its not the biggest deal but ive seen great scholars struggle for a moment to figure out the punctuation theres a reason everything else in the world is punctuated including most blog posts struggling over the punctuation is part of the necessary amelus of talmud torah especially when theres a machlokes in punctuation in addition it helps you remember what you learned with a punctuated gemara a person can think about the real issues of the gemara beyond how to read the words he can figure out matters of substance beyond where the comma goes a machlokes in punctuation is extremely rare i know of just as many questionable two dots and the punctuated gemara can mark it in those few cases having paragraphs and punctuation allows a person to go through things quicker and see it clearer giving him more time for chazara all of which helps him remember better see picture but why just ban punctuation there are all sorts of shortcuts all around the gemara page first it started with the mesoras hashas and the ayin mishpat and now they have likutei rashi and hagaos vtzionim not to mention the pesukim on the side which might cause someone to read tanach i think all these new laser print gemaros should be banned and people should return to using old manuscripts preferably with some letters rubbed out that would be true amelus punctuated gemaros have a different tzuras hadaf which is assur to change how will you find a gemara in another shas i dont know of punctuated gemaros that keep the tzuras hadaf but it shouldnt be too hard to make its just a technical detail tuvias edition is aimed for beginners so its filled with nekudos but no punctuation personally unless youve already finished shas with the old daf i think its time to use a different tzuras hadaf it was made by gentile printers hundreds of years ago and wasnt laid out perfectly there were no computers and they put tosafos on the page ok thats a separate issue using a different tzuras hadaf might make it a little harder to find something in another gemara but most of the time youll be using your own gemara anyways you can always look things up in the index or do a search on the computer it doesnt seem like a very big issue how will you learn to read a real gemara if you use a punctuated one for one you wont need to read the old fashioned gemaros because youll always be able to use a punctuated one but using a punctuated gemara will probably help people be able to use the other ones because theyll have been able to learn more gemara and have more experience which brings me to another point even if theyre against punctuated gemaros why on earth cant they let 5th graders use them it definitely would make a difference for beginners and they would be able to pick up gemara skills significantly quicker of course the question is based on the questionable assumption that the schools goals are to educate the kids see 31 years of batalah: i think all their arguments are just justifications for what they already have they use punctuation in all other seforim even though all the same arguments could be applied to mishnayos and rishonim they even use a full pasuk marking and trop system in torah shebichsav which actually was given from G d in a perfect umarked form if theres anything that shouldnt be punctuated its chumashim gemaros on the other hand are torah shebal peh and punctuating them just makes them more like the spoken word no one would say any of these arguments if gemaros had already been punctuated these are just ways of justifying things the real reasons people are against punctuated gemaros are not the justifications they say its very hard to accept any change especially something youve been doing a long time after having struggled so much as a beginner without punctuation its difficult to recognize there wasnt much of a point also it takes courage to read from a punctuated gemara you risk looking like youre not capable of reading from a real gemara the real reason gemaros arent punctuated is not because of any of the justifications given many of the kisvei yad did have some punctuation in them it was just too hard for the printers to print so they left it out the beginning of some mesechtos like brachos have some periods in them but it sort of tapers out at least they tried nowadays when the gemaros can easily be punctuated and published theres no reason to continue using gemaros from the 1500s this whole post may seem like making a mammoth out of a mole but it represents much more the refusal to change the gemaros are a prime example of refusing any change even a halachikly legitimate change for the better i think this is a point everyone can agree on